BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 592
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 592 (Lara)
As Amended April 25, 2011
Majority vote
LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Swanson, Alejo, Allen, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Furutani, Yamada | |Bradford, Charles |
| | | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| | | |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Morrell |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Smyth, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits employers from interfering or restraining an
employee's exercise or attempted exercise of their rights under
the state's medical leave law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits, explicitly, an employer from interfering with or
restraining the exercise or attempted exercise of a pregnant
employee's right to take job-protected pregnancy disability
leave.
2)States that this bill is declarative of existing law.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW establishes the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act (PDA), as an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to
prohibit sex discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth and
related medical condition
EXISTING STATE LAW entitles an employee disabled by pregnancy,
childbirth or related medical conditions to take pregnancy
disability leave (PDL) for a maximum of four months.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, negligible costs to the Fair Employment Housing
Department (FEHD) to enforce this bill. FEHD reports they
currently investigate complaints related to PDL and the
California Family Rights Act (CFRA).
AB 592
Page 2
COMMENTS : According to the author, as written, California's
Pregnancy Disability Leave and CFRA do not specifically
recognize "interference" with an employee's right to leave as a
basis for liability. The author states that this bill will
bring California's pregnancy and family medical leave laws in
line with the federal standard by clarifying that "interference"
is a basis for liability under California law as well.
According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), the PDA is an amendment to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. EEOC notes that discrimination on the
basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions
constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, which
convers employers with 15 or more employees, including federal,
state and local government, employment agencies and labor
organizations. EEOC notes that in the fiscal year of 2008, the
latest data available, they received 6,285 charges of
pregnancy-based discrimination. EEOC states that they resolved
5,292 pregnancy discrimination charges in 2008 and recovered
$12.2 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and
other aggrieved individuals.
The National Partnership for Women & Families (NPWF) states that
32 years after the 1978 passage of PDA, the measure is still a
critical tool for fighting pregnancy discrimination. NPWF notes
that, while PDA was the first law that gave pregnant women and
key federal enforcement agencies the legal means to discourage
and combat pregnancy discrimination, EEOC has seen a 39%
increase in the number of pregnancy discrimination charges filed
since 1992. According to NPWF, many women face discriminatory
pregnancy-related practices that pose serious obstacles to their
success and advancement in the workplace. They note that
vigorous enforcement of the law and comprehensive public
education about what the law requires are essential to ensure
that the PDA continues to be a vital tool for creating
workplaces free of discrimination.
Under the current FEHD Regulations (California Code of
Regulations, Section 7291.5), it is unlawful for an employer to
harass an employee because of pregnancy or retaliate against an
employee because of pregnancy or because a pregnant employee has
exercised her right to take a pregnancy disability leave. In
addition, current proposed amendments to FEHD regulations (as
AB 592
Page 3
amended at the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC)
meeting on October 19, 2010) would add the term "intermittent
leave" to PDL regulations that would specify that a pregnant
employee can use PDL time for medical appointments for purposes
related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
Supporters feel this bill makes it clear that interfering with
an employee's CFRA rights is forbidden and that by stating this
in the CFRA statute itself will better aid employers in
conforming their conduct to the law helping to avoid potential
litigation.
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinley / L. & E. / (916)
319-2091
FN: 0000689